Did you write a Comment to the Screener in your re-upload? If you did, perhaps they did not read it, but it is always a good idea to tell them what you did to the image, so they can look specifically at the change.

WRT when to say uncle, my approach is ONE re-upload of a rejected image. Take your time, do the best you can with it and if the re-upload is rejected, move on to something different.

My take is the white sign whatever it means is the killer. It does not fit the overall theme and it prevents you positioning the train correctly. My feeling on corrections is you have to determine whether the screener wants corrections or is just trying to tell you to forget it.

My take is the white sign whatever it means is the killer. It does not fit the overall theme and it prevents you positioning the train correctly. My feeling on corrections is you have to determine whether the screener wants corrections or is just trying to tell you to forget it.

Bob

I totally agree with Robert, the DED sign sticks out like a sore thumb. If you hadn't already submitted a number of these, I would have made the sign go away and then submitted it. Too late now.

Are the screeners able to see the previous rejects this way (see attachment) or do they only see the individual pics?

Yes. Chris Kilroy has previously indicated here on the forums that they have the ability to see everything you've done. He could probably quote you chapter and verse with respect to every rejection you've ever had and give you all sorts of stats on your acceptance/rejection rate, number of appeals, etc.

There have been a number of times when folks have come here with sob stories about getting banned, etc. and left everyone with the impression that RP kicked them out for no good reason. Then Chris pops in with the actual stats and we all learn.....as the late Paul Harvey used to say.....the REST of the story.

Once upon a time, I too got ulcers over rejections here, although about 80% were accepted. Everything changed once my Flickr views left my RP views in the dust. Sometimes I don't even bother re-submitting the rejected. Life is much more placid now.

Continual complaining about their judgment in the form of excessive appeals will result in negative consequences. When resubmitting note what you have changed in the comments to screeners.

He stated that he had 6 appeals, and 4 of them were eventually accepted. That means, technically, that the original screener's judgment was incorrect, and he should only have 2 appeals of the 6 on his record, since those 2 failed.

Think of it as the red flag in football that a coach gets to throw when he thinks a bad call has been made on the field. If the call is reversed after review of the play, the coach gets to keep the red flag for another "appeal." If the call is proven to be correct as made on the field, the coach loses his ability to appeal a call again.

A person should be able to appeal 100 times in a row if the appeals led to the images being accepted.

__________________.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

He stated that he had 6 appeals, and 4 of them were eventually accepted. That means, technically, that the original screener's judgment was incorrect, and he should only have 2 appeals of the 6 on his record, since those 2 failed.

I'm just blown away that someone would appeal 6 times in such a short timeframe.

Quote:

A person should be able to appeal 100 times in a row if the appeals led to the images being accepted.

I'd like to know the overall data on his appeal to acceptance / rejected again rate.

Loyd L.

__________________
Social Media elevates the absurd and mediocre to a point where they aren't anymore, and that is a tragedy.

He stated that he had 6 appeals, and 4 of them were eventually accepted. That means, technically, that the original screener's judgment was incorrect, and he should only have 2 appeals of the 6 on his record, since those 2 failed.

Think of it as the red flag in football that a coach gets to throw when he thinks a bad call has been made on the field. If the call is reversed after review of the play, the coach gets to keep the red flag for another "appeal." If the call is proven to be correct as made on the field, the coach loses his ability to appeal a call again.

A person should be able to appeal 100 times in a row if the appeals led to the images being accepted.

You are correct, but as Loyd has pointed out, the OP appears to have done the 6 appeals in relatively quick succession. His other comments about being frustrated with the screeners indicate that his overall success rate is much lower than 67%, and he appeals rejections more often than not.

After getting established and learning the system at RP, I have found that I appeal much less, and usually only about unlevel rejections, because I spend time on leveling/distortion on every photo. Even then, I have been proven wrong when I took a step back to look at the photo after an appeal was denied.

Shooting from the hip and appealing too much will get you on the bad side of the screeners unless your success rate is >90% (an arbitrary estimate on my part). It's human nature that you will get a reputation as a PITA if you complain too much. Using your analogy of a red flag, I haven't watched football diligently in some time, but I believe that use of two red flags per half are allowed, and the team loses a time out upon an incorrect appeal. Unlimited red flags for being right are not part of the equation.

Of those 6 appeals, he said 4 were accepted, which in turn dismisses them as appeals. Hence, only 2 appeals should go on record.

On the surface, that sounds like fine logic, Jim. Unfortunately, what we don't know is just how many people do the same thing or how often. I have no evidence, but I would bet that more than a few do it more often than they should. I have discovered that photographers often have egos and they don't take kindly to someone telling them their stuff isn't good enough. They also have trouble sorting out the battles that are worth fighting from the ones that aren't. It's a bit like asking a father which kid he loves most. Unfortunately, 3rd parties don't see all submissions as having equal merit, and in this case, it is the 3rd party view that has the final say.

I suspect that on a busy day, with a lot of uploads, it doesn't take too many folks with multiple appeals to really make the process a PITA for the Admins. Recall that Admins are the arbiters in all appeals and there are only two of them. If one was the screener, then only the other can judge the appeal. Add to that the screening workload, because I don't think there are that many screeners (can't tell anymore, that pages is gone), and it can become a real time-sink for these folks.

I'm thinking that Admins are probably fine with a few appeals a day.....which means perhaps half a dozen people appealing once. I'm just guessing that when the same guys keep appealing multiple rejections, that's when the welcome is quickly worn out.

As they say, "everything in moderation." That includes uploads, re-submissions and appeals. If the same name keeps coming up in relation to negative events, the results won't likely be positive.